Batman and Superman IV: "Do you bleed?" "Only on the home release..." (Now with SPOILERS)

[red snow]

10 hours ago, Leap said:

 

As for me, I'm semi-looking forward to seeing it tomorrow. Either I enjoy it, or I have fun criticising it. I can't really lose.

Yeah, Kind of how i feel too. There's always the comic fan approach of hate it, go see it (possibly enjoy it), then tell everyone you hate (and secretly anticipate the sequel)

1 hour ago, Bastard of Boston said:

Short story is it's about an hour and a half of spinning wheels and an hour of "Holy fucking shit, this movie just gave birth to the best moment of my life." It felt like the movie tried to be both a Nolany Dark Knight and a Marvel movie at the same time, but failed at both because the two tones just fought each other instead of meshing...ironic for a movie about two dudes beating the shit out of one another. First chunk of the movie was a lot of brooding character vignettes. Last chunk was over the top superhero porn. It's worth seeing, but as a whole, the movie falls short of living up to what it should have been.

 

I trust you more than paid reviewers and it seems to gel with what the "positive" ones are saying. Plus, we're the kind of people who enjoy watching the Flash every week, warts and all.

[GeorgeIAF]

I found the movie really good, not great, but not awful too, i don't know what the critics are smoking.

[Myrddin]

To be honest, I'm only interested in hearing what people who liked MoS think about this movie. People who hated MoS hated this movie long before release. It would need to be gold to get you guys to admit liking it. I'm not saying that to be a prick, which I know it reads that way, but it's the truth. If you go into a movie ready to pick it apart and hate it, chances are pretty good you'll hate it.

I watched MoS again last weekend with my boys (their first time) and I still like it. I paid special attention to some the criticisms while watching it, like Clark saving people, the color palette, and Zod's death. It all seems like exaggerated nit picking.That video with the side by side color comparison is off, at least on my tv. While not as bright as the color corrected version (which I agree looks great and would've been my preferred choice), it's not as drab as they showed it either. Lois Lane's investigation to find the "ghost" was successful because Clark spent all his time pre-cape saving people. He left a trail. During the battle of Smallvile, he went out of his way to save two soldiers, but was on the ropes almost the whole fight. He did what he could. And I still maintain Zod wanted to die b y the end. His whole purpose for being was gone with the genisis chamber destroyed. He told Clark either "you kill me or I kill you (and then everyone else)". That's how the fight was going to end. Zod could've fried that family. He wanted Clark to end it.

Anyway. That was wasted effort, I know. You either already agree, or already don't (and won't). 

The low RT score has tempered my expectations for BvS, it's true, but I'm still going to see it. And I will probably like it, being just as susceptible to by my positive vibe (hope really) going in as someone with a negative vibe. I'll give my honest reaction next Monday or Tuesday after I see it. I admit my rose colored glasses. Judge my impressions as you may.

 

[DaveSumm]

Completely agree (EDIT: with the post before last, but I did like MoS) critics are being very harsh. I'll spoiler tag, but only mild spoilers I think:

 

Spoiler

My fears that this movie would have too much heavy lifting to do with setting up the JL were unfounded, there's very little of them other than WW in the film. I was really surprised how coherent the film was, it's quite focused on its story of how people react to Superman. Bruce Wayne just falls into the camp who see him as a threat, and Lex Luthor acts to antagonise this feeling. That's really what the movie's about. It doesn't waste too much time introducing anyone, and just trusts that the audience knows who Bruce and Lex are.

I guess my only real issue is that, after Man of Steel, I'm still yearning for Superman to just be Superman. Even though this isn't really a Man of Steel sequel, we're still deprived of seeing Superman just operating day to day saving people. There is the messianic stuff from the trailer, but that's really there to point out how people view him and so it's tinged with brooding doubt and ominous music. I also still have the same feelings about  Bruce's "if there's even a one percent chance" speech from the trailer, I don't agree, and the film doesn't provide any additional context, that's just how Bruce feels. You could argue the rivalry is a little contrived at times, but hey, it's a movie called Batman v Superman. Something's gotta pit them against one another.

Lex is a little erratic and odd, but not quite the marmite feeling that some critics have been implying. Affleck is great, Cavill is just Cavill again from MoS and doesn't really get an opportunity to sink his teeth into Clark Kent who doesn't feature much. Lois is forgettable again (has Lois ever been well cast?) and the rest of the cast are as expected, as largely reported in critic reviews.

Overall, you might feel a little short changed if you want a Superman movie or a Batman movie, this really is an anomalous sort-of-sequel which is focused solely on Superman's place in the world and where Batman fits in. If we'd had an Affleck movie and a MoS 2 and a WW film, this might even have been viewed as quite a brave film that decided to take the time to deal with this one aspect before going full on JL. 

ONE MAJOR GRIPE. And luckily it's not something that permeates the whole film, it's a single sequence. It's a dream sequence, and it's terrible. It makes no sense and is incredibly jarring. I'll double spoiler and describe the whole thing so you know when to shut your eyes and I promise, it does end, it is a dream, and has no bearing on anything.

Spoiler

Batman is in the desert somewhere, possibly a ruined city somewhere.......but he's wearing both the suit, and some kind of desert combat get up. He goes to a bunch of soldiers that don't seem to question this, and into the back of a truck, where someone presents him with a bomb in a crate or something. Except.....it's a trap. They all pull guns, and try and take him down, so he flips out and starts a big fight......he's openly using guns for some reason. Big fight.....you're thinking, OK, I can deal with this......hang on, what are those things? Flying angel looking things that are.......joining in? Right. The soldiers have white S's on there arms as if they're pro Superman...and they're winning. They take Batman down, and now he's chained up in an underground cavern thing. You're thinking.....OK, there's been like 3 different scenes now.....is this really a dream? It better be a dream. Superman shows up, looks brooding, pulls the cowl off of him.......they exchange some words. I forget. Finally, Bruce wakes up....

.....and now there's a fucking wormhole next to him, and some guy's screaming at him through it? You can't quite make out what he's saying....something about Lois Lane? My God please don't tell me this is actually happening........this film is starting to look as shit as everyone said it would be.......

.....FINALLY, Bruce wakes up again. For real this time.

I have no clue if this a comic nod, or a JL tie-in that'll make sense later, or actually had relevance to this film that I missed, but it was really, really bad. 

 

 

[sifth]

I never had any real issue with Zod's death. For me it was always how Clark never seemed to give a dam about all of the destruction and innocent people he was involving in his fight with Zod; until the very end that is. Even Clark saving that family at the end was shot very poorly, because they don't even try to get out of the way of Zod's lazier eyes, they just sand perfectly in place, so Clark has a justified reason to kill Zod.

 

I'd also like to note that I'm a huge DC fan. I loved the Tim Burton Batman films (aside from Batman killing). I LOVED Bruce Timm's animated universe and just about any other show and movie he's worked on. I'm also a huge fan of The Flash tv series and have enjoyed quite a few of the animated DC films released in recent years.

 

Man of Steel just never sat well with me. Clark's father seemed wrong, telling his son he probably should have let his friends and schoolmates die, because he's destined to change the world one minute and then arguing with Clark about why he doesn't want to be a farmer the next. Also the product placements for the Smallville fight were just disgusting; "Let's have Superman fight at a 7 Eleven, lets have him fight at an IHOP".

 

I didn't like how the film was also crammed with too many subplots. The Krypton parts in particular.

 

Anyway, this was just my 2 cents though. If you enjoyed the film regardless, all the power to you.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

I really liked MoS and I think its because I have no attachment to Superman as a character. I've seen him in various incarnations an have mostly always thought of him as a bit of a dick. From Dark Knight Returns to Justice League, he always comes across as a bit of a haughty do gooder, a bit preachy. Maybe its due to him usually being seen as a bit dull that they have occasionally added to his character. Either way, I have no fixed view of what Superman should be.

So when I see the destruction of MoS, all I see is a young Superman, learning to be a hero, not really understanding what to do in the situation, being overtaken with emotion. He wants to save earth and knows he has to stop Zod. I don't care that there is no specific scene of him being forced to save people instead of stop Zod. There are hundreds of scenes like that in almost every other Superman movie and cartoon, its boring now. 

I also don;t think there were that many subplots, it seems reasonably streamlined to me. I really think its a good movie, well paced, beautiful to look at, excellent score by Hans Zimmer. I think a lot of people judged it purely on who directed it, that it doesn't look right in their eyes and that Superman isn't the standard golden boy he usually is. From a neutral perspective I find it to be well made and fun. 


Having said that, I still think BvS looks like a load of poo, almost taking everyones criticisms about MoS and ramping them up to 11 just to piss people off.

[sifth]

45 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

I also don;t think there were that many subplots, it seems reasonably streamlined to me. I really think its a good movie, well paced, beautiful to look at, excellent score by Hans Zimmer. I think a lot of people judged it purely on who directed it, that it doesn't look right in their eyes and that Superman isn't the standard golden boy he usually is. From a neutral perspective I find it to be well made and fun. 


 

 

Maybe I should have explained this a littler better. Sorry about that, I just didn't want to make my wall of text any longer than it was. The film opens up with Kryton about to blow up and Jor-El begging to the counsel to listen to him. Naturally they don't listen to him, like in all Superman origin stories and everything is well and good pacing and story wise. Then no more than two minutes later Zod is staging a coup, to seize power, for what only reason I can fathom is he believes Jor-El and wants to save his people, then two minutes later Jor-El is resisting Zod, because he apparently isn't "the right person to save Kryton". So we're treated for no reason to an extended chase scene around Kryton, where Jor-El needs to visit a baby farm, before sending his son to another planet. All of this happens in no more than the first ten minutes of the film.

 

All I really feel was needed from Kryton was Zod's trail (maybe even show some video feeds of Zod doing some horrible stuff) and Jor-El saving his son. I felt Zod killing Jor-El in front of baby Superman was just another excuse to shoe in another religious type reference into a film that already spends way too much time comparing Clark to Jesus.

 

The real heart of a Superman film I always felt is just seeing Clark help people as Superman and not constantly being compared to a god. I like him simply as a visitor from another world, who was raised by great parents and wants to help people out. I guess you can say I'm a less is sometimes better type guy though.

 

 

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

1 minute ago, sifth said:

 

Maybe I should have explained this a littler better. Sorry about that, I just didn't want to make my wall of text any longer than it was. The film opens up with Kryton about to blow up and Jor-El begging to the counsel to listen to him. Naturally they don't listen to him, like in all Superman origin stories and everything is well and good pacing and story wise. Then no more than two minutes later Zod is staging a coup, to seize power, for what only reason I can fathom is he believes Jor-El and wants to save his people, then two minutes later Jor-El is resisting Zod, because he apparently isn't "the right person to save Kryton". So we're treated for no reason to an extended chase scene around Kryton, where Jor-El needs to visit a baby farm, before sending his son to another planet. All of this happens in no more than the first ten minutes of the film.

 

All I really feel was needed from Kryton was Zod's trail (maybe even show so video feeds of Zod doing some horrible stuff) and Jor-El saving his son. I left Zod killing Jor-El in front of baby Superman was just another excuse to shoe in another religious type reference into a film that already spends way too much time comparing Clark to Jesus.

 

The real heart of a Superman film I always felt is just seeing Clark help people as Superman and not constantly being compared to a god. I like him simply as a visitor from another world, who was raised by great parents and wants to help people out. I guess you can say I'm a less is sometimes better type guy though.

 

 

Fair enough, I really liked the Krypton stuff, even though I was quite warey of it. I think it set up Zod nicely, and was better than say the Reeves Krypton version. Having it be a thrilling Sci Fi element was something I really enjoyed. 

Your last paragraph shows where you and I differ. I think your enjoyment of MoS really comes when you can leave behind any preconceptions of what the Superman movie you SHOULD be watching is. On its own turf, I think it works really well.

[sifth]

18 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Fair enough, I really liked the Krypton stuff, even though I was quite warey of it. I think it set up Zod nicely, and was better than say the Reeves Krypton version. Having it be a thrilling Sci Fi element was something I really enjoyed. 

Your last paragraph shows where you and I differ. I think your enjoyment of MoS really comes when you can leave behind any preconceptions of what the Superman movie you SHOULD be watching is. On its own turf, I think it works really well.

 

I guess that's true. You know what I really missed from MoS though. Those little Clark Kent moments, that always have something bad happening in front of him and someone shouts, "WHERE'S SUPERMAN, THOSE CHILDREN NEED TO BE SAVED" and then the person turns around and says "wait where did Clark just go". I know, they're campy, but they always put a smile on my face.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

55 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Fair enough, I really liked the Krypton stuff, even though I was quite warey of it. I think it set up Zod nicely, and was better than say the Reeves Krypton version. Having it be a thrilling Sci Fi element was something I really enjoyed. 

Your last paragraph shows where you and I differ. I think your enjoyment of MoS really comes when you can leave behind any preconceptions of what the Superman movie you SHOULD be watching is. On its own turf, I think it works really well.

I also liked MoS and the Krypton portions in particular.  I share your concerns about SvB having far too much story.  That didn't work in Spider-man 3/Amazing Spider-man 2 or any time they've tried to cram too much story into a comic book film.  Why do they keep doing this?  I've heard it said there are 5 good individual films in this one but they screw it up by cramming them into one film.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I also liked MoS and the Krypton portions in particular.  I share your concerns about SvB having far too much story.  That didn't work in Spider-man 3/Amazing Spider-man 2 or any time they've tried to cram too much story into a comic book film.  Why do they keep doing this?  I've heard it said there are 5 good individual films in this one but they screw it up by cramming them into one film.

These decisions are clearly almost always about money, and made by people above the director. I read somewhere that there is very little value in one singular film these days, a movie needs to be part of a series or an established property for it to even be worth developing. The real money is made from creating a bunch of movies that have an already established audience, its almost risk free then.

BvS seems like the its fallen into the trap of being about Franchise building first, good movie making second. In some ways I feel sorry for Snyder here, I'm sure he has the intention of making a good movie, but often there are too many cooks and they all want to spoil the broth. 

 

[Maithanet]

10 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

BvS seems like the its fallen into the trap of being about Franchise building first, good movie making second.
 

I agree with you, but I still don't really understand it.  The best way to get people to come back is to make a good movie.  Dark Knight didn't have any references to Bane and only the slightest shoutout to Catwoman.  But people were really excited about the sequel because Dark Knight was an awesome movie.  I went to see Avengers 2 because I really enjoyed Avengers.  I'm not going to see Civil War because Avengers 2 was stupid. 

If they made a really good BvS movie (and seriously, it shouldn't be that hard), you don't have to worry about people being excited to see the sequels.  It will take care of itself.  Then you could easily plug in one of Batman, Superman or Lex Luthor into the Wonderwoman or Aquaman movies if you feel like those properties need a boost. 

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

4 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I agree with you, but I still don't really understand it.  The best way to get people to come back is to make a good movie.  Dark Knight didn't have any references to Bane and only the slightest shoutout to Catwoman.  But people were really excited about the sequel because Dark Knight was an awesome movie.  I went to see Avengers 2 because I really enjoyed Avengers.  I'm not going to see Civil War because Avengers 2 was stupid. 

If they made a really good BvS movie (and seriously, it shouldn't be that hard), you don't have to worry about people being excited to see the sequels.  It will take care of itself.  Then you could easily plug in one of Batman, Superman or Lex Luthor into the Wonderwoman or Aquaman movies if you feel like those properties need a boost. 

Can't disagree with that and in an ideal world you'd assume thats just how things would go. However, having worked for a number of companies over the years, I can see that very few are efficient or work in a logical way. You always have personalities involved and people who have their own agendas, arguments, nervousness.. it basically means that not everyone is pulling in the same direction. 

There is clearly a lot of nervousness about building a brand, they've failed numerous times already. You can see certain teams getting nervous and wanting to prove to the money men that they have added elements to the movies which will establish future movies. I can imagine the conversation right now:

Warner Bros exec ' Hey Zach, we're loving your work, but we need to set up the wonder woman movie and the Justice League movie, we loved what marvel did with their little easter eggs, and we know the internet is a huge thing, we want the fans to go crazy seeing a glimpse of Wonder Woman. Can you put her in the movie'

Snyder ' Well i could, but.. it doesn't really make sense.. I want this movie to be about Batman and Superman.. and we've already started filming'

WB: 'The great Zach, but we DO NEED to see WW in this movie, projections show she's not that well known and we are nervous about the WW property'

ZS: ' Er.. ok well I guess I could fit her into a couple of scenes somehow'

WB 'Great thanks Zach, oh and also we need you fit in Flash, Cyborg, Aquaman as well' 

ZS 'What?? But thats really not the movie I'm making here! You asked me for a Superman vs Batman movie! In fact I didn't even want that, I was going to do Man of Steel 2! ' 

WB ' We're just very nervous that Aquaman isn't going to land, and we need to see Avengers level of profit for Justice League Zach, I need to be able to go back to the board and prove to them that we are going to land a JC movie Zach! Can you prove that for me!'

ZS ' GAH!!!'

WB ' Also Zach, our numbers suggest that Doomsday was a popular figure in the comics, can you get him in there too, we have a deal with the special effects guys and they already have some models in the computers which they could use so it would be cheap!'

ZS '.....'

WB ' Oh and Zach, we're going to need at least 15 Easter Egg moments in this movie, we've got a deal with MovieBlend and a number of other spammy websites and they want to do a load of lists for nerds, please fit in as many of those as possible'

ZS * Commits suicide*

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

In reality though, Snyder is probably more interested in doing some crazy CGI mentalness and doesn't care about his own story. But thats just a possible example.

[Maithanet]

It's funny because my wife and I were actually contemplating writing a humor piece based on a theoretical Warner Bros meeting about how so many things got crammed into this movie.  It was very similar to what you outlined.

[mormont]

23 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I agree with you, but I still don't really understand it.  The best way to get people to come back is to make a good movie. 

Of course. But, what the studios want is to make a good movie and have all the franchise building and easter eggs and so on. If you told them that the best way to get people to come back is to make a good movie, they'd agree enthusiastically, but point out that it's possible to do both. And... they would not really be wrong. It can be done. It's just really hard.

[Tinker Tanner]

Anyone think Jesse Eisenberg was totally miscast in this? Its a shame because i think he could have been an incredible Riddler in a stand alone Batman movie. 

[aceluby]

I really don't understand why people want to see Superman save people.  It's boring and unimaginative.  It's been done a million times in every form imaginable.

A story about a flawed Superman that has human characteristics and how the general public reacts to someone who has all the power in the world, but at his core is still human, has much more story potential.  I'm pretty excited for this film despite the reviews.  My friends who saw it last night loved it and thought it was a good sequel to MoS, but they thought MoS was overall better.  I'm seeing it on Sunday and can't wait.

 

[red snow]

Decided to see it for myself. The film was a joyless yawnfest until Doomsday turned up and then there was 10 minutes of "This is actually good - I'd love to see a Justice league  film".

It reminds me of Snyder's worst efforts eg Sucker Punch where there are some nice scenes but it feels like vignettes. At least Sucker Punch had vignettes of "crazy shit you'd like to see in a video game", this film was more a vignette of everybody being miserable and drained of colour.

Casting wise I don't think there were any problems. I'd love to see a BAtfleck where, I don't know, there's some characterisation and something for him to do. Cavill is lumbered with the thankless job of playing a depressed Superman but I liked how he was a hero and put those he loved first. Wonder Woman was great because she smiled although again there was very little characterisation.

It's like Snyder relied a little too much on people knowing who these characters are and forgot to fill that extra time with interesting stuff or character dynamics.

As for the more spoilery stuff

The title fight was ruined for me by the fact it could have so easily been avoided. These people need to learn to communicate as I'm sure a simple "my mum is going to die" would have halted it. Granted Batman was being a dick but Superman didn't have to keep walking towards him while trying to tell him something.

While I liked seeing the other Justice league members having Bruce Wayne essentially click on youtube clips as a way of introducing them was incredibly lazy.

The dream sequence was probably the best in the film. Was Batman seeing a possible future thanks to the Flash's meddling?

I enjoyed the Doomsday battle he felt like a sufficently strong threat for the three of them and the battle was interesting. They didn't rely on hordes of CGI Doomsdays which is how MArvel would have done it.

The Batmobile appearing indestructible for 10 minutes and then being wrecked when it bounces off Superman was fun.

Someone needs to ensure Snyder injects some characterization in the Justice League films. As it stands this outing gave me a bunch of characters that were iconic and could easily hold their own films but were empty here. I think Avengers did a better job of introducing the cast and having them interact (despite having the intro films). BvS really needed to up the ante if it was trying to launch three characters.

And the whole thing needs to lighten up which is probably why I enjoyed the Doomsday fight as it forgot about being miserable for a while.

 

[red snow]

I really don't think the franchise building was what bogged it down. The lack of character interaction between the main characters and general lack of story was the problem.